PALACIOS v.

RAMIREZ
Feb 15, 1982 | ABAD SANTOS, J.| Institution of Heirs > Substitution
PETITIONERS: TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, MARIA LUISA PALACIOS
RESPONDENTS: MARCELLE VDA. DE RAMIREZ, ET AL, OPPOSED by Jorge & Roberto Ramirez
SUMMARY: Ramirez had a French wife and an Austrian companion. His will provided for certain
substitutions, which were opposed by the oppositors for being invalid. SC agreed and held such to be void.
.
DOCTRINE: Held # 4. Held # 2 may be important as to the types of substitution.
FACTS:
1. Jose Ramirez is a Filipino citizen who died in Spain, leaving only his widow, Marcelle, as his
compulsory heir. Marcelle is French who lives in Paris, while his companion, Wanda de Wrobleski,
is Austrian who lives in Spain.
2. Decedents will was admitted to probate by CFI Manila, and Palacios was appointed administratrix.
The inventory submitted by her is in Spanish. The testamentary dispositions in the will were also in
Spanish.
3. Palacios submitted a project of partition wherein the properties are to be divided into 2 parts: one
part to the widow to satisfy her legitime, while the other part or free portion shall go to Jorge and
Roberta Ramirez. Further, 1/3 of the free portion is charged with the widows usufruct, while the
remaining 2/3 would be charged with a usufruct in favour of Wanda. Apparently, a vulgar
substitution in favour of Wanda, with respect to Marcelles usufruct, and in favour of Juan Pablo
Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez, with respect to Wandas usufruct were made by the testator in
the will.
4. Jorge and Roberta opposed:
a. provisions for vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda de Wrobleski with respect to the
widow's usufruct and in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio V. Ramirez, with
respect to Wanda's usufruct are invalid because the first heirs Marcelle and Wanda)
survived the testator
b. provisions for fideicommissary substitutions are also invalid because the first heirs are not
related to the second heirs or substitutes within the first degree, as provided in Article 863
of the Civil Code
c. grant of a usufruct over real property in the Philippines in favor of Wanda Wrobleski, who
is an alien, violates Section 5, Article III of the Philippine Constitution
d. proposed partition of the testator's interest in the Santa Cruz (Escolta) Building between
the widow Marcelle and the appellants, violates the testator's express win to give this
property to them.
5. LC approved the project of partition.
ISSUE: WN the substitutions are valid? NO. INVALID.
HELD:
1. (As to the widows legitime) no question as to the legality of giving Marcelle 1/2 of the estate. Under
Art. 900, CC: "If the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to one-half of
the hereditary estate." and since Marcelle alone survived the deceased, she is entitled to one-half
of his estate over which he could impose no burden, encumbrance, condition or substitution of any
kind whatsoever. (Art. 904, par. 2, Civil Code.)
a. They do question the 1/3 usufruct over the free portion which the appellants question. It
appears that the court a quo approved the usufruct in favor of Marcelle because the will
provided for such. However, it erred for Marcelle who is entitled to 1/2 of the estate "en
pleno dominio" as her legitime and which is more than what she is given under the will is
not entitled to have any additional share in the estate. To give Marcelle more than her
legitime will run counter to the testator's intention for as stated above his dispositions even
impaired her legitime and tended to favor Wanda.
2. (TOPIC as to substitution) "Substitution is the appoint- judgment of another heir so that he may
enter into the inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted." (Art. 857, Civil Code). There are
several kinds of substitutions, namely: simple or common, brief or compendious, reciprocal, and
 fideicommissary (Art. 858, Civil Code.) According to Tolentino, "Although the Code enumerates
four classes, there are really only two principal classes of substitutions: the simple and
the fideicommissary. The others are merely variations of these two.
a. Simple or Vulgar (Art 859) - The testator may designate one or more persons to substitute
the heir or heirs instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before him, or should not
wish, or should be incapacitated to accept the inheritance
b. Fideicommissary (Art 863) - A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary
or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second
heir the whole or part of inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect, provided such
substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted, and provided
further that the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are living at time of the death of
the testator.
c. In this case, the testator provided for a vulgar substitution in respect of the legacies of
Roberto and Jorge Ramirez, thus: con sustitucion vulgar a favor de sus respectivos
descendientes, y, en su defecto, con substitution vulgar reciprocal entre ambos.
3. The appellants put in issue the substitution of Wanda with respect to the widows usufruct. This
was rendered moot, however, by the pronouncement in Held # 1.
4. (As to the fideicommissary substitution) They allege that the substitution in its vulgar aspect as void
because Wanda survived the testator.
a. SC: VOID.
b. The substitutes (Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez) are not related to
Wanda, the heir originally instituted. Art. 863 of the Civil Code validates a
fideicommissary substitution provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree
from the heir originally instituted.
c. The word degree was construed as generation and this interpretation has been
followed in the present Code, by providing that the substitution shall not go beyond
one degree from the heir originally instituted. The Code this clearly indicates that the
second heir must be related to and be one generation from the first heir. It follows that the
fideicommissary can only be either a child or a parent of the first heir. These are the only
relatives who are one generation or degree from the fiduciary.
d. There is no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufruct to the substitutes as
required by Arts. 865 and 867 of the Civil Code. In fact, the appellee admits that the
testator contradicts the establishment of a fideicommissary substitution when he permits
the properties of the subject of the usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement of the
usufructuaries and the naked owners.
5. (As to Wandas usufruct) SC opined that the Constitutional provision which enables aliens to
acquire private lands does not extend to testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will
be for naught and meaningless. Any alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying
money to a Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land. However, it validated
the usufruct as it did not vest title to the land, which is what the Constitution actually prohibits.
6. The Court ordered to distribute the estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez as follows:
a. thereof to his widow as her legitime;
b. thereof which is the free portion to Roberto and Jorge Ramirez in naked ownership and
the usufruct to Wanda de Wrobleski with a simple substitution in favor of Juan Pablo
Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez.